Chapter 2 — Finance

Adequacy of capitation

When compared with unemployment benefit, Mazars concluded: For the 30-year period, the industrial school capitation grant was on average 122 percent of unemployment benefit payments. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the capitation payments were sufficient to support a child as they exceed what was expected to support an adult male.15

Mazars used the Central Statistics Office’s household budget survey covering the 1939–69 period to ascertain expenditure on child maintenance and concluded: This analysis suggests that the weekly capitation was appropriate for its intended purpose as weekly capitation exceeded expenditure incurred per child by a typical household.16

Mazars also noted that the analysis demonstrated economies of scale associated with child maintenance. As the numbers of children in a household increase two things happen: (a) the incremental or marginal cost of that additional child is less than the incremental cost of the maintaining previous child; and (b) this serves to drag the average maintenance cost per child downwards. Unfortunately we do not have data to measure the economies of scale likely to arise in a Reformatory or Industrial School situation.17

Mazars concluded that the capitation grant was sufficient to feed, clothe and accommodate the children in Industrial Schools to a basic but adequate level – no child should have been hungry, cold or neglected.

For many institutions other important factors came in to play. This was particularly true in the case of the larger boys’ schools where farming was a significant benefit to the running costs of the schools. Large farms in schools like Artane, Letterfrack and Daingean were worked on by the boys and allowed these schools to be almost self-sufficient in terms of food and even generated extra income through selling produce.

In addition, it was a consistent complaint even in contemporary documents that industrial training was used as a means of providing for the needs of the institution rather than the needs of the children. The impact of this varied from school to school and as between boys’ and girls’ schools.

Clothing, footwear, food, cooking and property maintenance were provided to the institution by the industrial training provided to the boys.

Clothing, cleaning, cooking and childcare were provided to the school by the industrial training offered to the girls.

In some Sister of Mercy schools such as Goldenbridge, rosary bead making and other industries provided a considerable extra income to the school.

There was evidence from complainants of baking and laundry facilities being made available to the public for profit.

Not all schools had these additional factors but some did. At the very least it might be expected that in schools that had extra resources, the capitation grant would be seen to go further and provide a better standard of care for some children. There was little evidence that this occurred and indeed some of the best physical care was given by schools such as St Joseph’s Kilkenny, which had almost no farming and no outside source of income.

Another significant factor identified by Mazars was the economies of scale that applied to the larger institutions. The Orders argued that the institutions’ fixed costs remained static irrespective of how many children were there. This fact, which was used to ground an application for increased funding when numbers began falling, was also true in reverse. Large institutions should have had the benefit of savings when in periods of full occupancy and yet the evidence pointed to greater deprivations during those periods.

Mazars’ findings were contrary to the assertions of the Congregations and the Department of Education. The Commission invited submissions from the four Congregations that were the subject of the accounts analysis in the third part of the Mazars’ report and from the Departments of Education and Science and Finance.

Response of the Christian Brothers

The submission by the Christian Brothers in response to Mazars was dismissive and critical of the Mazars’ approach in relation to adequacy of the capitation grant. This document exhibited a defensive approach by this Congregation to the investigation by the Committee. Instead of seriously analysing the funding issue and acknowledging the validity of the questions raised, the response sought to achieve by vehemence what it ought to be striving to do by way of analysis.

Mazars was asked to look at the capitation paid to ascertain whether it was enough to do the job intended. Mazars was not asked whether the system was cheaper or more expensive than that operated elsewhere. They were asked simply to analyse whether the money paid for the maintenance of the children was sufficient to do that. Mazars used comparators that were contemporaneous and directly relevant to the costs of childcare at that time.